P. v. Nicoll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/6/13  P. v. Nicoll CA3

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 

 

California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT

(Tehama)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   CHRISTINA RENEE NICOLL,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C071815   (Super. Ct. No. NCR81054)

 

 

 

 

 

This case comes to us pursuant to >People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).  Having reviewed the record as required by >Wende, we affirm the judgment. 

            We provide
the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the
case.  (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

>FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            On February 2, 2011, around 11:00 p.m., defendant Christina Renee
Nicoll became angry with her husband after he came home intoxicated.  They first argued inside the house, where
several items were broken and defendant threw her husband’s clothes on the front
steps.  The argument then moved outside,
where defendant threw a rock at her husband, striking him in the href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">forehead.  Defendant then got into her car and drove
toward where her husband was standing, causing him to jump out of the way.  Next, she rammed her husband’s truck,
causing her car to become stuck underneath the truck.  Defendant showed signs of being under the
influence of drugs, including displaying rapid eye movement, dilated
pupils that did not react to light, rapid pulse, and quickly changing
moods.  She had also urinated in her
pants.

            Defendant
pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5,
subd. (a)) and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Veh. Code,
§ 23152, subd. (a)), and was placed on three years’ formal
probation. 

            Defendant
subsequently admitted violating her probation by smoking methamphetamine.  The trial court revoked probation, sentenced
defendant to three years in state prison and awarded 245 days of
presentence credit (147 actual and 98 conduct).  The trial court subsequently amended the
award of presentence credits to 294 days (147 actual and
147 conduct). 

            Defendant
obtained a certificate of probable cause
(Pen. Code, § 1237.5) and appeals. 

>DISCUSSION

            We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal.  Counsel filed an
opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal.  (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.)  Defendant was
advised by counsel of the right to file a
supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening
brief.  More than 30 days have elapsed,
and we have received no communication from defendant.  Having undertaken an examination of the
entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant.

>DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                                            MURRAY                     , J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

                       BLEASE                       , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

                        HOCH                         , J.